Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened. To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals more than it reveals. The movement must be understood on its own terms in order to understand it and see how it differs from its predecessors.

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and which must be defeated.

The Marxist Analysis of the Social Battle

Marx and his followers identified the industrial working class as that revolutionary force. Here’s how the idea appears in the 1848 Communist Manifesto:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Marxists posited that the workers’ condition would worsen and that no reform could improve their situation, forcing them to become revolutionaries. Their main ally would be the lower middle class, wiped out by big business and new technology:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat …

In contrast, who are the revolution’s enemies? Capitalists, clergy, and those elements that benefit from capitalism. And along with them:

The “dangerous class,” [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Note that in many ways the post-Marxist left reverses this analysis. The lumpenproletariat becomes its ally along with those — many of them prosperous — who benefit from the government’s management of capitalism. In contrast, Marx’s description of the revolutionary forces sounds more like a description of Tea Party members.

Why Marxism Failed

This is a complex subject, but given limited time here are some key points:

– Capitalism didn’t decline but advanced, raising living standards across the board. So Marx was wrong about capitalism. Rather than a generalized misery (think of London during the second half of the nineteenth century), the “victims” today are a small minority, 10 to 20 percent, who have been left behind. And even these people receive welfare and other benefits beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in every other country and every historical era in the world.

– The working class prospered, preferring material betterment rather than a transformation of society. So Marx was wrong about the proletariat, especially in the United States. What’s important to remember is not that this group struggled to improve its life and working conditions but that it succeeded.

– This adjustment of society to solve these problems was due to many forces. One was improved technology and methods of organization, created by the capitalist system. Another was reforms, usually brought by liberal and social democratic parties and the institution of trade unions.

– The workers were responsive — at the time more than the elites — to the appeals of religion, patriotism, and traditional culture.

82 Comments, 40 Threads

Check out Portland State University. They’re currently running a Revolutionary Marxism class, where the students must partner with any number of Marxist groups as part of the class. It’s all on PSUs website. Just do a search for Revolutionary Marxism, and check out the link under the “Chiron Studies” program.

Not really. Not much talk of China in the analysis, who some would say are better capitalists than we are, and they do it all under the umbrella of socialism. As Deng Xiaoping once said, “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”

The Communist Party of China is not trying to subvert the country. They are trying to become a super-power. Red America is actively trying to subvert the country and turn it from a super-power to an under-power. No ordinary Chinese get any sort of welfare. let alone cradle-to-grave handouts. Red America wants ordinary Americans to be beholden to them for almost anything.

In Red America, it matters a lot whether the cat is black or white. It matters zilch if it catches mice.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is wrong. Advanced industrialized states in the West do not succumb to communism, but to fascism. And, fascism disguises itself as socialism, so as to capture the loyalty of people who believe themselves to be sympathetic to socialist goals.

Analyses of the many fascist parties that arose in the 20th century indicate they have the following kinds of features: (1) one-party authoritarianism; (2) a charismatic leadership principle; (3)an ideology, sometimes ethnicist, distinct from liberalism and marxism; (3) a principle of activism, unbounded by any philosophical principles; (4) a sense of messianic mission; this is coupled to a kind of civic religion, which may rest on a faith in some principle, such as ethnicity or environmentalism or some other kind of civic religion which replaces traditional religions and embodies a “mythic” framework to replace religious transcendence and faith.

We see the principle of activism unconnected to any philosophical principle when we examine the current Occupy movement. The charismatic and messianic components are obvious in Obama adulation. The replacement of religion with a new “mythic” framework shows up clearly in the new “fairness” ideology and contempt for people who “cling to their Bibles” and Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church.

Real communists, as shown by Latin American communists’ comments, despise Obama and his ilk because they correctly identify him and his followers as fascists who are out only to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of anybody who stands in their way, including the “proletariat” or “workers.”

How is communism different from fascism or any anti-democratic movement? They all stink the same (and they all belong to Eric Hoffer’s definition of a mass movement as a malignant belief system; a moral hiding place for damaged personalities).

The important thing is alerting the electorate that the enemy is not only inside the gates but at the helm.

I’d like to read some of those comments. Are you sure they think he’s a fascist? It seems more like Third World communist street-fighters would consider Obama an amateur – someone who talks communist but lives a 100% capitalist lifestyle.

Fascism, when first created by Mussolini (who had been a communist) was sold as “The Third Way” between unbridled capitalism and the communism of Lenin & other violent radicals. But it is a variation of marxism: same class theory and same belief in the power of the state over the individual. As those are guiding principle’s of our Dear Liar, I do label him, political-philosophy wise, a marxist, who’s governing in a fascist manner, rather than outright socialist or communist (which would entail him actually nationalizing industries, such as banking, and then being accountable for the results.)

Amish, Quakers, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are all Christian religions, but expressed very differently, with some major theological differences. Similarly, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a communist country that sought to ruralize, but it was still communist just like the USSR, which sought to industrialize. Fascism is just a different denomination of marxism (the theology) from socialism & communism denominations. And there are many different variations within fascism, just as the Protestant flavor of Christianity has many differing denominations.

I think Marxism, fascism, Communism, is all inter-related. It is all about control of the people, and looks nothing like freedom. Sure, we all have to pay taxes, and follow laws. It’s when laws and taxes become so burdensome, that tyranny takes over, and all the power control types of governing takes place, which is not governing at all, because it becomes inescapable.

I tend to agree that Obamunism and the New Left movement are more of a fascist movement than communist, and in Rubins brillant article here on Page 5 he explains that old style Communist wanted to seize the controls of production which led to mismanagment and failure while the new style Left and Obama want to leave the controls in the hands of their crony comrades and funnel the money to selected industries along with their various interest groups and base supporters. While Fascism is only a hop, skip and jump along the politcal spectrum from Communism, all are polar oppoisites of Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

The distinction between “Communist” and “Fascist” is based on the Left-Right political model, which is based on a sort of spectrum, with fascism at one end and communism on the other. Personally, I prefer a circle (or even a sphere) – move too far in any direction and you fall around to the bottom, which is totalitarianism. Once you’ve hit bottom, it doesn’t really matter how you got there (and good luck trying to climb back up).

Oh come on, you are falling for the lefts game here. Fascism was never the far end of conservatism…. If conservatism was the ideals of less government, then if you keep taking the route of limited and more limited government, then you become libertarian/anarchist.

Hitler was a leftist. The left knew if their policies were directly linked to that mass murderer they wouldn’t get elected to dog catcher, so they called Hitler a right wing fascist instead of his real ideology of a national socialist. Hitler only publically attacked communism because it competed directly with Hitlers subtlety different socialism..

The fascist Mousilini is more inline with what Obama is doing… Instead of seizing control of the means of production, he merely
controls it through heavy regulations, with a pay to play system where you must donate to him in order to receive special treatment to move ahead of your competitors.

As has been often pointed out (see “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg and “The Pournelle Axis”: http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm) Fascism is a branch of socialism. Socialism is characterized by centralized control of the economy. Marxism implements direct ownership of the means of production by the government (“nationalization”); fascism uses indirect control through “crony capitalism” and government presence on the board of directors – precisely what Obama did with GM and Chevy.

I see it exactly as you do. Not only Obama, but the Democrat Party itself is Fascist. Why take over and struggle with the means of prodUction when you can co-opt and control it with little effort. Mussolini and H would appreciate Obama’s skill.

Pray don’t get seduced by the variety of “isms” the media feed you. A coin has only two sides, not seven or nineteen. Since humanity is the dominant species, we must live together and husband our planet. There are just two ways to do that. Either Everyman is a Freeman or Everyman is a Slaveman. Either we are Athens or we are Sparta. Choose.

Gloria,
Your completely and un-equivoqually, incorrect. The goal of the Soviets was and has been since the invention of perestroika in 1959, to use idealogical subversion to to “fundamentally transform” the entire global assembly of nations into communist or socialists states. Perestroika was not about changing Russia but instead about changing the United States into a communist or socialists state.

This article is fairly precise, however it does not get at the root cause behind the implementation nor the underlying doctrine of communists, socialists, progressives and that faux Christianity known as Liberation Theology. The author of this article as many others simply does not understand that this is a religious coup d’etat for not only the United States but the entire globe. Four fontal attacks against a traditional society such as that Christian society which existed in these united states up until its forced ejection, which started in the 1900s with full swing subversion starting in the 1960s. The four fronts used to subvert the United States were Financial, Religious, Educational and Political. All of these fronts were subverted and use as points of indoctrination against the American people. In every single case those who were performing the subversion were believers in the doctrine with was the basis of Hegel and his students which included Marx & Engels.

1) Education was subverted and the system was forced to fully eliminate Christian base teaching and adopt the Stoic philos-sophos based teaching of Darwin and Henri Saint Simon, know as evolution and the Scientific Method respectively. All major and most other US universities require students to learn some version of philos-sophos doctrine . Their very fraternity and sorority systems are based upon Greek philos-sophos doctrine. Further ALL public school systems were subverted in the early to late 1970s and have been institutions for subversion to Stoic philos-sophos doctrine. The public school systems teach our children to adhere and obey rather than teaching them to think on their own. The current public and unviersity school systems of these United States. indoctrinate children as opposed to teaching them to think and analyze for themselves. The result has been an entire generation which has had Christian doctrine eliminated form its thinking or consideration via the public and university education systems. Even the so called Christian Universities have adopted Stoic philos-sophos based Marxism as the basis for defining biblical text (Liberation Theology), thereby subverting even the traditional Christian point of view. The Apostle Paul warned this would occur (Colossians chapter 2, and specifically verse 8)

2) Politics was subverted by the same Stoic philos-sophos teaching of Henri Saint Simon known as the Scientific Method and became political-science as opposed to politics. The use of Henri Saint Simon, Darwin, and Hegel’s Stoic philos-sophos based ideologies, eliminated the Christian based ideals of the past and replaced them with Stoic pholos-sophos based idelas and the use of dialectics. Soviets infiltrated both the major political parties and subverted many of their members in the 1960s and have continued to expand beyond that point. The failure comes with identifying these folks as leftists or liberals as that is completely incorrect. These folks are Zealot believers in Stoic philos-sophos doctrine. And many as we are observing today are hard line Zealots. The democratic party was the easiest to indoctrinate however the Republican party has it share of those who adhere to Stoic philos-sophos doctrine.

3) Religious systems in these United States were separate and dogmatic in their doctrine historically but respected other religious beliefs and tenants not adopting them between the various religions but tolerating them under the constitution as rights of the individual. Many times the line was crossed and one religion of another attempted to force their beliefs upon other religions, those attempts were always rejected and the respective religion forced back across the line into its proper place, all except one religion, which I call the hidden religion. The hidden religion has been allowed to reign supreme in these United States and has been further allowed to subvert all other religions and force it religious beliefs upon all citizens of these United States. Many of the US laws created by congress since the 1960s have been in respect of the hidden religion and its implementation as the national religion of these United States . I speak of the doctrine of Greek philos-sophos (philosophia) as the Apostle Paul so apply identified. This doctrine in its various versions, specifically the Stoic version has been allowed by the government to become the National religion. Hidden from the public view by names such as communism or progressivism or socialism, this religion has progressed to the point that its has taken over the majority of anyone less than 35 years of age. Further this doctrine has been allowed by the various other religious communities to subvert their own doctrine. Liberation Theology has become the most successful subversion, as it has subverted the majority of traditional Christian churches, forcing them into an alternate doctrine and away from Hebrew based Christian doctrine. The constitution requires that our federal government protect the rights of the people to be secure in their religious belief. However the subverted federal government allowed soviet subverters to exist in these United States and further allowed them to subvert Christian religious systems and doctrine.

4) Lastly is the financial system, the basis is of Marx & Engels dialectic of materialism was applied to the financial system in these United States and all financial activities were thereby judged according to that dialectic. There is no greater testament to this fact then the law known as the community reinvestment act. That act broke with sound financial principal the Christian teachings related to debt and force upon the poor and middle class a system of available finance which was unsound and highly unstable. The resulting failure was observed in what is now referred to as the housing bubble. Worst yet is the fact that this marxist based law still exists today and is building us toward and even greater failure down the road. The law forces finical institutions to continue to make risky loans to individuals who have not adequate financial means of repayment. The law uses the dialectic of materialism to view the financial institutions as the oppressor and special groups of minorities as the oppressed. This same Marx * Engels dialectic is also the basis for the faux protest group known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS identifies the 1% and the 99% in an attempt to use the Marx & Engels dialectic of materialism against the wealthy, calling for just redistributive means to be initiated which supply the 99% with the wealth of the 1%, via forced government action, usually taxation and federal government programs such as the community reinvestment act. This fails two distinctive Christian laws. One is to not covet what others have, and the other is to not steal that which you covet. The dialectic of materialism is in direct violation of the Hebrew based 10 commandments of the Lord God of Israel, as it forces the use of covet means the the use of government action to steal that which is coveted.

There is what you have missed Gloria, you have not understood the whole plan of the Soviets as described by A Golitsyn and Y Bezmenov, as well as others. Further you are ignorant of the Greek doctrine which the Apostle Paul identified as philos-sophos in Acts 17 and Colossians chapter 2. Further you are ignorant to the fact the Greek philos-sophos doctrine, especially Stoic philos-sophos doctrine is the base doctrine for theses supposed political systems known as Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and Objectivism, and Lastly you are ignorant to the fact that Christianity has been allowed to be subverted by Marx & Engels Stoic philos-sophos based dialectic and ideology known as communism.

If allowed to continue on its current course, America will become a communist nation within 18 months of this date 12 Apr 2012. Only a well armed people acting upon their right and responsibility under the declaration of Independence can throw off this communist oppression and subversion being forced upon these United States. It will take sound and decisive action by the people in order to defeat the very few who communists, progressives and socialists who stand atop this coup d’etat to overthrow and fundamentally transform America. No America is not perfect and no man ever will be perfect, but why must we subject ourselves to absolute despot tyranny under the Sage of the Stoic philos-Sophos doctrine (Marxist – Leninist) in order to figure that out? Is it really necessary that we as the United States go down this pathway of self destruction in order to prove once again that the Stoic philos-sophos such as Marx & Engels and Lenin and Hegel and George B Shaw and Hitler and Mau and Stalin, were wrong? Are we too stupid to observe the failures and results of past implementations of this doctrine upon other societies? My vote is to stand and reject the doctrine as un-constitutional and force its disassembly from our federal system of laws.

Is Bobby Hawk my real name? No, its a pen name used by many with a common mail box for e-mail to reside. If I provided my real name it would be a matter of hours before the communists would either have me arrested or shot for bringing to light their plans to overthrow these United States using the highest levels of official US office. They know who I am and they plan on using the new health care system to eliminate people like me who stand against the forced assimilation of Stoic sophist based communism and or socialism.

The interesting part is that their numbers are very few, usually comprising less than 10 % of the US population and the Zealots usually comprising less than 2% of the US population.

First is American must understand that what the Marxists are doing is forcing assimilation of these United States to their doctrine (Greek philos-sophos doctrine), Just as the Apostle Paul identified in Acts 17 and Colossians chapter 2.

Second Americans must understand that forced assimilation to any doctrine is un-constitutional under the bill of rights “Congress shall make no law in respecting the establishment of a religion” Congress can not legally establish a state religion, however since the 1960s that is exactly what has occurred.

Third the American citizens must understand that the Declaration of Independence provides them the right and the responsibility to take government to task and replace it if it becomes despot or tyrant. This forced assimilation to Stoic philos-sophos based Marxist doctrine is just exactly what the declaration was identifying.

Forth the people must turn to their various leaders among the 50 states first, which when gathered with one accord can take the federal government to task since it is the agent of the several states. The states must speak the will of the people and force the federal government to immediately take action to irradiate all communists, socialists and progressives out of the government and end the coup d’etat to fundamentally transform the United States and its constitution. Basically pushing the reset switch at the federal government level, removing all that has been instituted since the 1960s in the name of Stoic philos-sophos doctrine by the various Communist, Socialists and Progressives.

Remember this coup d’etat of the communists, socialists and progressives can be stopped dead in its tracks at the point by the majority of the several states deciding and taking action against forced assimilation to Stoic philos-sophos doctrine. This is a coup d’etat at the highest levels of the US government and it will require steadfast and focused individuals form the several states to speak in one accord agains their actions and bring them to justice for there actions of traitor against the constitution and agains the people of these United States. This can be done in an orderly fashion at this point, however as it proceeds further the requirement of military action in order to defeat the Marxists coup d’etat overthrow, becomes more and more necessary. The 50 state governors can lock down and control their individual states so prevent acts of sedition against the government.

Seems to me the neo New Left’s cavorting with Islam is strictly tactical, for the moment, and is a bargaining chip to gain or maintain state power at which point the “revolutionary Islamists” become legitimate targets instead of objects for appeasement. Interesting analysis. I could be wrong, but I really don’t see a merging of Marx, Mao, and Mohammed. Certainly the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t going to cozy up to a secular West, led by left overs from the American SDS in a sort of recycled Mussolini Corporatism?

I marvel at the erudition of Mr. Rubin, who can navigate the history of marxist literature and its various initiatives, and map with precision the evolutionary path eventually leading to what we are up against today. Without the command of such a depth of analysis, I nevertheless sense the discipline of systematic stealth and deception on the part of today’s leaders of the left.

Coming of age in the 60s, when I would have become a hippie, had I not resolved to trust in my own counsel. I now listen to my own grown-up children and their friends, and suddenly realize that they have been bombarded in their teen years (and even before) with marxist notions to an extent that I had not even begun to suspect. I just thought that learning the essence of what MLK was teaching would be enough to set their compass for good. In fact, I often feel they had more wisdom going into college than returning from it. It is a hard slog for them to retrieve some sense after having been “processed” by the academia.

As Mr. Rubin asks in the end, the question today is whether it is too late to react.

Amidst the culture they navigate, and the channels they rely on for news, many in the new generation are not aware of how far they fell from the tree, as it were. Asking them about the ideology they are more likely to adhere to would be rather like asking a fish what the water tastes like: They would hardly know! So what to do? Engage, and be patient. The arguments of the left are in fact weak on the intellectual level, regardless of their emotional seduction. It is a matter of appealing to their capacity for reason, as opposed to the supersonic discourse (TM) they are accustomed to. A worthy effort, late, early, and ever.

Thanks to those who read the article and who made positive responses. I will have to write more about this in future. A key factor is this: We know these policies are failing and will fail. People sense this. They have been offered establishment explanations: if only the rich were taxed a bit more and the Muslim Brotherhood given the benefit of the doubt, etc., all will be well. We must explain why they failed. Ultimately, one hopes, explanations that meet the facts and proposed policies that make sense will prevail. More to come.

“We know these policies are failing and will fail. People sense this. They have been offered establishment explanations: if only the rich were taxed a bit more and the Muslim Brotherhood given the benefit of the doubt, etc., all will be well. We must explain why they failed.”

It doesn’t matter if the policies fail or succeed, it is immaterial. What DOES matter is that the policies be implemented and obeyed. The Fuhrerprinzip’s true and only agenda is the maintenance of Fuhrerprinzip.

What uniform it wears, what slogans it shouts and what promises it makes are only props on the stage that it sets to get you in the seat and keep you there.

Power is expansionist, it is self-justifying, and it seeks to concentrate itself in the hands of the few.

As Orwell wrote about war:

“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance…”

What your analysis above does is chart the “battle tactics” of one group.

I witnessed the transition of US unions from a conservative, anti-communist force, for the most part, into a communist dominated labor party between the ’70s and the late ’80s. If you’re wondering what happened to the leadership cadre of the old SDS look no further than the leadership cadre of the wall to wall industrial unions such as UAW and IAM and the big public and service employee unions like AFSCME and SEIU. I’m a child of the ’60s and had more than a flirtation with radical politics in my youth, so I knew what I was seeing in the strategy, tactics, and vocabulary of the evolving unions. Most of my peers at the time were also ‘boomers with at least some experience of radical politics. Over time we became very adept at dealing with the unions qua unions because we understood Alinsky better than they did – and we understood labor relations FAR better than they did because we weren’t burdened with their self-righteousness. But what I never learned was how to communicate what the unions did and why they did those things to my political principals. I agree with almost every word Mr. Rubin says here except I see them as an evolution of communism based largely on the industrial and public/third sector union experience of co-opting management to serve communist ends, a prcess the NSDAP called gleichshaltung, best translated as forcible co-ordination, which makes the modern US communist look a lot more like a fascist. When I was in charge of my state’s relations with those unions, I managed to never really have to explain how I could predict their behavior and why I chose the strategic and tactical paths I chose because I had the confidence of my principals. I’m confident that if I had told them that my primary handbook of labor relations wasn’t Hardin’s “The Developing Labor Law” or Elkouri’s “How Arbitration Works” but rather was Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” they would have looked at me like I had horns and a tail and I’d have lost that confidence. Fortunately, nobody ever asked me why there were so many copies of “Rules” in my office. I’m putting on a class at our upcoming State Republican Convention in a couple of weeks aimed at teaching our ’12 crop of candidates what to expect from the unions and give them some insight on how to deal with them. What I’d like to be able to say is that “they’re a bunch of communists and some of them even know they’re communists.” But, I know I can’t say that or I’ll lose virtually that whole audience the minute I say it. Somehow we must find a way to call them by their real name or find a workable name for them that allows us to communicate to normal ordinary tradespeople, professionals, and small business people who and what they’re dealing with because right now the communists OWN the language and have thwarted all organized opposition with that mastery of language and communications. Until our Republican leaders stop viewing them as “my friend across the aisle” and start viewing them as an existential threat to our Nation, we are losing this war.

Art – Mr. Rubin makes a very good point when he states….
“Thus, the failure of their program will be increasingly obvious and sooner or later they will be voted out of power. There is a big difference, however, between “sooner,” when the damage might be reversed, and “later,” when things have gone too far, too many people bought off or indoctrinated, and too much debt accumulated.”

And you make another when you write….

“Until our Republican leaders stop viewing them as “my friend across the aisle” and start viewing them as an existential threat to our Nation, we are losing this war.”

Unfortunately, we have just from now until November 6th to “win the war” and wake up the voting public or it will be too late. We won’t get another shot at getting it right in 2016 since there will be nothing to take a shot at. By the time the Republican leadership wakes up the party will be over. We are now dangerously close to the “later” that Mr. Rubin refers to.

There’s a real danger of them turning the bug of failure into a feature. The more they fail, they more they can justify turning their policies up to eleven. You can see this with the neo-Keynesians making the non-falsifiable argument that the reason why “stimulus” failed is they didn’t do enough of it.

Part of the attraction of environmentalism in general, and carbon jihad in particular to the left is the way it throws a monkey wrench into the economic apparatus. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that they want prosperity; in fact, they want calamity. They they can make the non-falsifiable claim that capitalism is failing, and they have to crank government activism up to eleven.

It’s an idea so preposterous, only intellectuals could believe it. And they do. Unfortunately, too many lumpen have unlimited confidence in the intellectuals.

Please do, Mr Rubin, write more extensively from your wide knowledge. In particular, I would like you to address the red-green coalition that is rife around the world. Some of your readers seem to think it is merely tactical. I quite disagree.

I am from India, from West Bengal, which for nigh three decades had a Stalinist, rather than a Maoist, communist party ruling the federal state, under a charismatic leader. These Stalinists have always pushed for the Indian Army to withdraw from the Kashmir borders, knowing full well that if the Army were to do so, the Pakis would move in. I understand that India has a large Muslim population, the second largest after Indonesia. And even Commies in a democratic polty needs votes. But this is treasonous at the very least.

Tell ‘em it is not tactical but strategic. Not expedient politics but ideology.

Problem is we need everyone to hear this…. But the only person on the right with a big enough megaphone is the GOP nominee, but I don’t see Romney understanding the nuances of Marxism, nor would he try to communicate it.

My only quibble- actually, more of a major irritation- is the habit that columnists have of calling what Obama & Co. are doing “crony capitalism”. It is nothing of the sort.

What they are actually pursuing is syndicalist socialism. The money quote is right here;

“Historically, radical Marxists defined the capitalist state as bad. Since it could never be used to do what they wanted, it must be subverted. In contrast, the New New Left views the capitalist state, if they control it, as the best base for furthering their agenda. That is why the former were revolutionaries while the latter practice what Obama called ‘fundamental transformation.’ A ‘revolution’ so subtle they can persuade millions of people that it isn’t even happening.”

“Crony capitalism” is the state in which private business sets policy for government, mainly to minimize competition and maximize their own profits. Examples of this in the past included John D. Rockefeller’s oil cartel, Lammot DuPont and the Powder Trust, and the Steel Trust. The orders are given by the industrialists to the government officials, for private personal gain.

“Syndicalist socialism” is the system in which policy is set by government, mainly for “social” objectives, and a select group of industries agree to carry out those orders in return for special considerations. Those considerations can include exclusive government contracts, relief from regulations, and the power of government being used to suppress or even destroy competitors outside of the favored group of “socially responsible” industrial cartels.

To put it in shorthand, crony capitalism gets you railroad magnates being able to buy out upstarts for a penny on the dollar. Syndicalist socialism gets you a car maker manufacturing cars nobody wants to buy on “ecological purity” grounds. It’s the difference between the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, and the Chevy Volt.

Mussolini was a syndicalist socialist. So was Hitler, and Godwin’s Law be damned. Rheinmetall, Krupp, Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf didn’t tell Der Fuhrer what to buy for his military; he told them what he wanted, and they built it- or else.

Obama tells Chrysler, GM, and GE what he wants, and their CEOs fall all over themselves saying “Yes, SIR!” So far, only Jeffrey Immelt has managed to make a profit at it.

Obama is a syndicalist socialist, not a crony capitalist. And every time you call what he and his minions do the latter, you are letting them put the blame for their dogma-motivated disasters on their subordinates, the industrial groups they have co-opted. Mainly through their friends, the industrial unions.

Which is why I am sure they love to hear you call their antics “crony capitalism”. If there’s one thing any con man loves, it’s hearing everyone else blaming his victims for his depredations. Even if the victims are at least partly willing ones.

I think that it works both ways, though. GE certainly seems to think that it can do well by supporting Obama; I rather imagine that if you ask both the “crony capitalist” and the “syndicated socialist” in government which is which, they will each think that they are the ones calling the shots.

The essence of the con is making the mark think that whatever happens, (a) he is getting something for nothing and (b) it’s his idea, not the grifter’s. Convincing the mark that he’s also conning the con man is the highest form of the art.

It’s made easier by the innate dishonesty of anyone who would sign on to a scam like this to begin with. The old saying, “You can’t cheat an honest man”, has a basis in fact. Generally speaking, the only people who fall for a “work with me and get the inside track, while we stick it to the peasants” line is somebody who could, with complete accuracy, say “I am myself indifferent honest”, as per Hamlet (Act 3, scene 1).

It’s only when the roof inevitably falls in that most marks realize how badly they’ve been suckered. Especially the ones who joined up in the belief that they were “part of the team”, i.e. helping the grifter con a third party. But by that point, a smart grift has already left town with the swag. In cash.

In this case, Obama is the grift, Immelt & Co. are the “indifferent honest” marks… and the rest of us are the “third party”. Aka the “props” in The One’s little medicine show. (Pun unintentional, but oddly accurate, I think.)

I am no scholar, but I did read the Communist Manifesto in college as a proud professor read many items from it as if he was reading the Bible like a good preacher. I was amazed at that particular moment how anyone could want this type of system to govern their lives and the lives of others. I knew then that this was nothing more than a power manipulating the people into submisssion. We are the New Left’s whipping boys; all they want and even find the most pleasure in is to see how far they can manipulate and control us without us even knowing it. And sorry to say most of the laymen never notice it until it is too late. But as 1/3 of the earth’s people are Christian, I have hope that here in America, we may be blind for a little while, but God will open our eyes to the likes of these manipulators and run them out of town. The Lord Jesus is one thing these marxist fear, hope in God the Father by the peasants.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of Marx going on here. I am no fan of his. In my post-grad Eco classes, I read the Communist Manifesto, though it was not required reading. But Das Kapital was, all three fat volumes of turgid prose.

Marx was persuaded by Engels to write the pamphlet when, in 1848, the French students revolted. His purely economics work came out ten years later. One might be surprised that Marx never believed that socialism can be brought in thru revolution. On the contrary, it was the full success of capitalism that would evolve into socialism.

Marx belonged to the 19th century economists called the Worldly Philosophers, along with the likes of Adam Smith etc. Marx’s analysis of capitalist economics was, actually, prescient. It required the likes of Schumpeter and Keynes to breed out some of the systemic flaws in capitalism.

I enjoyed reading your analysis and hope to read it again for more depth of comprehension. I too am impressed by the depth and scope of knowledge that underlie the thoughts.

From my common pedestrian view, I have come to feel that things as they are now and things that are developing are territory I haven’t seen. You tend to view events through the lens of past experience and it’s tempting to approach dealing with them in the same way. But I don’t think today is just ‘politics’. Seems more like a cold war that I pray will not go hot.

Also though, you were right if I read you correctly, the long view is that there is hope, that reality can win the day.

So, what do we do about it? How do we rein a free people? The Left under Obama are empowering the bureaucracy to rule over us and have so insulated themselves from Congress that Obama, should he win in Nov, can be a near dictator in spite of a GOP Congress. Personally I’m willing to take up arms against our would be masters but I’m just one guy. Are there enough Americans willing to fight for their liberties should the Leftsts succeed in their coup? They are dangerously close even now.

Read Lenin’s papers (Zizek’s “Revolution at the Gates: Zizek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings” is vital). I can assure you that Barack Obama has closely studied Lenin’s writings, to the point that he recognizes the necessity for the Second Revolution which is underway now.

Excellent piece. In the board game “Obozo’s America: Why Bother Working for a Living?” featuring Obozo the Marxist Clown, the hundred dollar bill has a picture of Karl Marx with the slogan “Equality Taxation Poverty.” Google “Obozo the Marxist Clown” and you can find it. It’s the perfect summary.

Fascinating keep going mr rubin
I have been traveling down this road myself in private readings over the last 24 months
Who would ever have thought one needed to read up on Marxism and
socialism here in America. ( I first came here as an immigrant in 1973)

Talk about the press and their role in all of this. Both information and disinformation
I’m not sure we can pull out of this. Don’t remember the exact wrote. The problem is not Obama. The problem is an electorate so stupid as install him in the first place
Dont you feel like with Obama now it’s all Hate Week all the time ?

Exactly right: The real problem is with the electorate. It has been miseducated and corrupted to the point that it would swallow obvious bilge from an obvious shyster whose slogans (like “hope and change”) would make the average product marketer cringe. What we can do is hope that the experience of the last three years has opened enough eyes to turn back the tide. I’m amazed, though, at how many still buy the slop despite all the evidence. After all, Europe is imploding before our eyes in real time, yet the lefties here — O chief among them — still want to bring it to our shores.

Marxism is not an economic system. It is a faith, albeit an atheistic faith. Marx looked forward to the day when everybody would think alike, since there could be no differences of opinion if there were no economic differences. Boy we he dumb! A doctrine that thinks of a world without disagreement as a utopian idea is necessary one that enforces thought control.
Here’s something I wrote that’s related to this idea:http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/MarxMoney.html

Perfect analysis.
How do we roll them back ?
I fear that the subversives will find a way to “manage” the elections.
How do we roll them back nonetheless ?
We need a long term plan, and I am thinking about a colossal war of ideas, a serious return to serious culture against the ideologies promoted by the subversives.
How do we do that ?

I agree Sherab. If we cannot prevail in the ’12 election, we must consider our options while there is still time. We must organize. I believe we should move to conservative states and form state militias. I think we should all start making email lists. We are at a disadvantage because we cherish individualism. We must organize. The individual is powerless against the state.

The historian Jacques Barzun has written somewhere that the inheritance of Marxism manifests itself in the widespread belief that to improve society is a simple task which requires a very complicated theory behind it– whereas the reality is quite the opposite.

What we need is not a Marxist analysis but the courage to speak about things as we see them. No matter what our station in life happens to be, we must all resist the opposite temptations of, on the one hand, being too timid for fear we might harm our friendships and careers, or, on the other hand, of turning deliberately outrageous out of some feeling of frustration. In short, we need to overturn an accepted tenet of good manners and guide our conduct by a whole new commandment: defend your ideas with dignity at the dinner table and at work!

The objective never changes, only the means. Some people will simply do anything to gain power and wealth. At one time, they were called criminals. Recently they have been called marxists and communists. Nowadays, they are called leftists and democrats.

all of the philosophy bullshit is just that…just a ruse to trick the rubes. They don’t give a rat’s ass about it. Whatever works is good enough.

Marxist class analysis of the American “new new left” has already been carried out by Angelo Codevilla. He did not call it “class analysis”, perhaps to avoid antagonizing his audience, but that’s what it is. I am surprised to see no mention of his work here.

See also the last few pages of chapter 8 of The Road to Serfdom: Hayek does a brilliant analysis of the class dynamics that brought Mussolini and Hitler to power, a rare example of Hayek coming down to Earth and talking about specific events.

I think it of particular interest that the social classes that brought Mussolini+Hitler to power, are the same social classes that are fighting Scott Walker in Wisconsin. My understanding is that, from the Marxist point of view, Walker’s opponents are the same as fascists, because political movements supported by the same social classes are essentially identical.

Obama isn’t a socialist, fascist, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Maoist, National Socialist, Muslim, Shining Path’er, Third Wayer, Whig, Progressive, Communist, or anything of the sort. He is a vaguely left of center capitalist (slightly to the right of Reagan). This incessant name calling does little to advance our ideas, rather it just makes us look silly. Seriously folks, its time to start reading something other than PJ, Redstate, and the ridiculous Ayn Rand, watching something other than Fox, and listening to something other than Rush. There’s a lot of interesting thought out there, check it out.

I call him an egotistical narcissist with a fantasy-prone personality disorder. Which puts him in the same class as the average UFO contactee, for example George Adamski. Who was also noted for drawing a long bow, as we used to say, to explain away the inherent contradictions in his worldview, not to mention said worldview’s conflicts with reality.

Obama practices syndicalist socialism not because he’s a (fill in the blank)-ist, but just because it’s the method of governance which he thinks will get him the most of what he, personally, craves. Namely, power and worship.

It’s good old fashioned tyranny. Obama is just a garden-variety tyrant. Period. He is not smart enough to be an ideologue, he is simply a bully…taking by force that which he is too stupid to gain by intellect.

Free societies descend into tyranny when their populations realize they can use the power of government to give themselves benefits at the expense of others.

The good news is that tyrants always get defeated, albeit usually with great loss of life.

The important thing is to arm yourself…there is a reason for the 2nd amendment. The Founding Fathers knew this descent into tyranny would happen.

I agree with TommyTee. The philosophical discussion re: Marxism, Facism, syndicalist socialism etc is fine for the readers and commenters of this website but is way above the head of the average American voter. What needs to be conveyed to Joe voter is, the what the American Left wants for America, whether Communism, Marxism, Facism, socialism etc, is all ANTI-FREEDOM and is a growing Federal tyanny essentially the very opposite of what the Founders intended for America. When one couches his argument in terms of freedom, think toilets, shower heads, lightbulbs, it resonates when one asks, “What is next?” How much power, how much control does one want the government to have over one’s day to day activities? Also, what does one want for their children and grandchildren. These questions go to the heart of the issue causing people to think without worrying whether the government is merely socialist or is becoming Marxist.

One searches on any site “Russian Revolution” and is struck by similarities between conditions having given rise to political/social/economic upheavals in Russia then and conditions present in America in 2012. Both are strikingly alike…chilling!

It is my preposition that the workers are not within the Adam Smith defined objective class society.
The objectivity of a class is given by propriety.
The classes are the non and the innovative entrepreneurs.
The first – at least today – have evolved into crony capitalists versus the latter, the venture capitalists.

2. Marx fundamentally perceived a production society in which specialization would become obsolete and each individual would be a neuro-surgeon, a rocket scientists would have you.

3. Marxism therefor is a utopia.

4. It is important to know that Marx described trade unions as founded by the capitalists. That Marx thought them not to be revolutionary (innovative) But that Marx was later criticized by Lenin not willing to transform the revolutionary Trade Unions of the workers into a (Bolshevik) revolutionary political party.

5. That is the reason why the term Marxism-Leninism is a termini in contradiction.

6. All communism after Marx were interpretations and with Lenin all doomed to be a utopia as well.

“within the system” to seize control of the state apparatus in order to transform the society. Thus, the state is to be strengthened as a tool for transforming society rather than defeated.
Such a tactic, called “entryism,” is by no means new.
What may well be in line with the exposure of tactics is to reveal the disguises used to propagate the messages of “fairness” and central planning. Utopian ideals come to mind, as well as the ever popular “wishful thinking”: “If only Iran would unclench their fist we would open ours.” Green energy is the future. If only the greedy corporations would share more with the workers of the world and unite for the betterment of mankind and women’s rights, and the signature issue of ‘universal health care.’ World Peace. Those are great aspirations but as unfathomable and unlikely as the human nature of 7 billion people.

Radical-Feminism (such as Catharine MacKinnon in 1989′s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State”) lifted Marx’s analysis and also Antonio Gramsci’s strategy for establishing the Marixist-Leninist revolution in the politically competent polities of ‘the West’ (as opposed to the lumpen-masses in the Russian ‘East’ of 1917).

‘Hegemony’, ‘dominance’, ‘oppression’ and ‘the marginalized’ all appeared in Gramsci long before MacKinnon lifted them (and without attribution) and provided a major ‘philosophical’ justification for the 1990s era when far-left/radical feminism (the only kind of real feminism, MacKinnon says) was invited in through the national front-door by the Clintons.

There was always an anti-Framing Vision ‘authoritarianism’ inherent in MacKinnon (as it was inherent in Lenin and Gramsci whose ideas she scarfed): after all if The People mostly ‘just don’t get it’, then why listen to The People? Thus MacKinnon liked the idea of using the courts since judges could avoid “messy” democratic politics and impose the revolutionary agenda on their own.

And 1985 Eurocommunist Chantal Mouffe clearly stated that her “radical democracy” actually had no use whatsoever for “deliberative democratic politics”.(Because the masses ‘just don’t get it’, of course).

The biggest Question is: how did the Beltway ever think it could mix matter and anti-matter by insinuating and imposing the principles and method of so alien a political Universe into the American political Universe defined by the Framing Vision and the Constitution?

Now we face not only the ancient Leviathan of engorged impositional government from the Right, but the new Leviatha created from the Left by radical-feminism’s importation of Marxism-Leninism through Gramsci and Mouffe and suchlike.

I go into these matters on my site, Chez Odysseus, especially with recent essays on Gramsci and MacKinnon.

You and the Marxists are wrong.
The Marxists are a cult. No new prophet has appeared nor has any real rigorous rhetoric occurred.
Capitalism did not raise anyone’s standard of living.
The workers did that themselves through demands, negotiations, and violence.
Capitalism is a fact, like rain. Neither good nor bad but must be dealt with.
Marxism is a religion, like Scientology.

Can we say UFO conspiracy? LOL This author’s grasp of reality is a bit slim at best. The current “left” is far “right” of the “right” in the first half of the 20th Century. Democratic Party took the mantel of individual Rights from the Republican Party in the 40′s, and things have never been the same since. There is no “left” and “right” anymore. Only money interests that use these terms to stir emotion and fuel fear in the minds of average citizens, like the author of this article.

It is as simple as an ancient Chinese general said: Know your enemy. The question becomes, how does the information in this outstanding article get a broader airing so that Americans of all types can learn the truth about the Left?

Great writing. Obama is dangerous, true, a tyrant, but I agree with the ‘dissidents’ who don’t think he is some sort of brilliant Marxist theologian studying Lenin all hours of the day and night.

I think he’s more likely to be focused on his ego, golf and weird sex..

But the bottom line is that he and his friends are stripping the US of its liberties, peg by peg. They’re good, they’re mean, and they intimidate. The George Zimmerman Prop Play – used to stir up the voting base on a race/class basis – is yet another example of their ruthless tactics.

And I agree with a couple of posters above who said that the electorate is to blame. It likes its ignorance.

It is still intriguing to rediscover the disguised sellings points and sugar coatings of big government, central planning Marxist advertising. For the pre-revolution Russians the pitch had to be about the end of the Tsars’ elitism,forced poverty, and security in the lives of serfs.
In the media driven new age, the need to convert from freedom to cradle to grave security has to be about free stuff and entitlement. Anyone who thinks that despite the laws of physics that there is anything free in the universe has to be a target of the new fascist persuasion.

Brilliant analysis deserving of many rereads and tweets.
I wrote “Surviving Civil War II” to address some of these same issues by giving an historical, philosophical and strategic perspective to the left’s running covert revolution. Essentially we are fighting a second civil war over the debt slavery of our children to the welfare state. Because the Obama regime and progressives can’t count on the military to prop up their rotted state infrastructure of domination, they have to employ proxy armies of SEIU unionists, OWS anarchists, illegal aliens and race baiters. Yes, a dissection of the Left’s new adaptation of Marxist revolutionary rhetoric is long overdue.http://www.futurnamics.com/civilwar.php

Wow, so the booming economy of the last century that left every country in the history of the world in the dust had nothing to do with freeing men up to make agreements amongst themselves with limited meddling from government?? That these massive booms in economic prosperity merely happened because of unions?

You sir are dreaming. Unions if anything has acted as anchor on economic prosperity and free markets. ,weighing us down and evtually causing the flight of manufacturing to go to other countries…. Unions will single handily be responsible for the decline of America, as it’s impossible demands has chased businesses and manufacturing to other countries.

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.